In St. Louis, roving “wilding” gangs of up to 100 blacks attacking people at train stations

Robert Curran writes from St. Louis:

Regarding your post about the black mob chasing a white in a Minnesota park, St. Louis has recently been experiencing its own version of this, as reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Of course, it never says so in the reporting, but anyone familiar with St. Louis will immediately understand that the groups of “youths” are blacks, coming from the solidly black half of the city, the southern edge of which abuts the north border of the popular Loop entertainment district. (MetroLink is the local light rail system)

The story below includes an account of a wilding attack by a mob of twenty on a family of five returning on MetroLink from a vacation. There is no mention of the race of the attackers or the victims. The odds are 99.99 percent that the attackers are black. (Correction: given that one of the attackers’ name is Jermaine, it is a 100 percent certainty that the mob was black.) The odds are probably 90 percent that the victims are white. Yet there’s no mention of race. Here is the article:

ST. LOUIS—Police plan to step up patrols this weekend around two MetroLink stations and part of the Delmar Loop after a series of violent attacks linked to roaming groups of teens and young adults who gather in the Loop.

There have been at least three attacks—including an assault by a group of at least 20 on a family near the Forest Park MetroLink station.

St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson, whose 28th Ward includes the Forest Park station, said St. Louis and University City police and Metro security were responding to the attacks.

“I just want to say that this is pretty unusual, which is why everybody is on it,” Krewson said. “What we have here are three or four incidents that all happened within a couple of weeks of one another that do appear to have some similarities. They are obviously completely unacceptable.”

Capt. Jim Moran, commander of the St. Louis Police Department’s Seventh District, said groups of young people appear to be meeting in the University City part of the Delmar Loop, and then walking east to the St. Louis side. By some estimates, the groups have reached about 100 people.

When groups get to be so large, Moran said, “there is always someone who wants to act with bad behavior.”

St. Louis police met this week with Metro security to develop plans for the upcoming Friday and Saturday nights. Moran said St. Louis police will be more visible. Willie McCuller, Metro’s director of security and fare enforcement, said the transit agency will post additional security the next two weekends, as well.

“There will be a higher uniformed presence at both Forest Park and Delmar” MetroLink stations, McCuller said. “It’s a very high concern and priority to Metro. When we have anyone assaulted on the system, that’s a high-priority issue. We can’t allow that to occur.”

‘IT WAS TERRIFYING’

Shortly after midnight on July 26, a group of 20 or more people attacked a family of five returning home from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport near the parking lot at the Forest Park-DeBaliviere MetroLink station.

Five members of the family and the fiancée of one of the sons—who spoke to the Post-Dispatch on the condition their names not be used—had boarded the 11:38 p.m. MetroLink train from Lambert. They had just returned from a vacation in Puerto Rico.

The train was mostly empty, other than the family, until it reached the Wellston and Delmar stations. When the train stopped at the Delmar Loop station, members of the family saw some police officers outside. Metro officials reported an earlier attack at that station.

By the time the train reached the Forest Park station, the platform was bustling with activity. Family members wheeled their luggage to the end of the platform and took the stairs up to DeBaliviere for their short walk home. They walked past a Metro bus stop and MetroLink parking lot along the west side of DeBaliviere.

They then saw a large group running toward them.

Someone heard a voice from the pursuers: “Let’s get them!”

Four were knocked to the ground. The 23-year-old son took the worst of it. He figured he was hit and kicked 10, maybe 20 times, opening up a gash over his right eye and fracturing his left eye socket.

He spent 13 hours at the hospital that night before he was released. He underwent surgery on his left eye on Monday and still suffers from double vision.

Another person, who was not a member of the family, also was hit.

The parents estimated the assault lasted up to 90 seconds.

“It was terrifying,” said the mother, 50, who was knocked to the ground after being hit on the head. “Because I looked and there is one son surrounded. And there’s another son I can’t even find. And my husband is on the ground. My daughter, I don’t know where she is. It was just horrific.”

Some of their attackers were wheeling around the family’s luggage. Some could be heard laughing.

“I think they were just out to pound on people,” said the father, 50. “They were just having fun.”

A police officer pulled up and the crowd scattered into the night. Police arrested two 17-year-olds—Dorez C. Rankins of St. Louis and Jermaine M. Smith of Jennings—trying to escape on the MetroLink platform.

Both of the teens denied involvement in the attack, police said, but said they had previously been in the Loop. They were charged as adults with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor.

Metro officials said they believe the attacks at the Forest Park and Delmar stations were related, but St. Louis police said they had not connected them. In the Delmar incident, two or three youths were attacked by a large group on the westbound platform at 11:36 p.m. Security tapes show a large group of youths surrounding the victims as they sat on a bench.

One week later, on Saturday night, an employee of the Pi pizza parlor at 6144 Delmar Boulevard was assaulted and robbed of his cell phone at a parking lot across the street near the Pageant theater, police said. Later, a group of youths attacked a restaurant employee near the outdoor dining area.

Pi restaurant officials declined to talk to a reporter.

Joe Edwards, owner of the Pageant across the street and a board member of the two special business districts in the Loop, said last weekend’s disturbance appeared to be a random, isolated incident. But he welcomed efforts by local law enforcement to compare notes and plan ahead.

“As far as being any dangerous situation, I think it is an aberration,” Edwards said.

He said he walked around the University City side of the Loop late that night and said it was calm. He missed the large group that had gathered on the eastern end near the Pageant.

University City Police Chief Charles Adams said his agency has noticed large groups this summer. His officers enforce ordinances—including curfews for minors—and try to keep sidewalks and streets clear of large crowds.

“It is part of the culture of the summer,” Adams said. “We get large groups coming to the Loop. We want people coming to the Loop to be gentlemen and gentlewomen.”

[end of article]

Did you notice what the father of this family, that had been attacked by savages, said? “I think they were just out to pound on people, They were just having fun.” Having fun! By knocking his whole familiy to the ground, bashing his son’s head in, fracturing his eye socket! How would you like to have your eye socket fractured by a swarming gang of hoodlums, and then hear your father say that your attackers were “having fun”!

However, we should be grateful to this Eloi fool, for he has clearly shown us how much white liberals care about their own children—and how much white Western society cares about its own members.

—end of initial entry—

I had forgotten that two days ago Harry R. from St. Louis had sent me an earlier article on the same wave of attacks, written by the same reporter. Harry R. wrote:

Although the attacks were caught on video, the actual attacks were not shown on local TV. What was shown was a large group of black youths approaching a victim who appeared to be white. The news media refers to the attackers only as youths with no mention of race. The media also fails to discuss the motivation for the crimes. Is this a hate crime? Was it a robbery attempt? Were these crimes racially motivated? These questions are off limits. As long as our community cannot deal with black violence our transit system had best remain off limits for white riders.

I wrote to the reporter:

Ken Leiser
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Dear Mr. Leiser:

Was there a racial component in these attacks? You provide no physical description of the attackers. Were the attackers black, or white? Were the victims black, or white?

Any person reading such a story is naturally going to wonder about that.

Thank you.

Lawrence Auster
New York City

Leiser did not reply to this simple request for simple information.

* * *

Mark A. writes:

I think the success of Obama cannot be understated here. The greater his success, the more these attacks will increase. Negroes know that whitey is scared. They know that he is losing his grip on the whip. In addition to these attacks, I have also noticed lately that I am seeing more and more white women with black boyfriends. This was something I hardly ever saw 10 years ago. Food for thought indeed.

LA replies:

Possibly true on the first point. I don’t know about the second point. White women with black boyfriends, at least in certain liberal cities, campuses, etc., has been somewhat common—though not extremely common—for decades.

Mark A. replies:

True. It’s purely anecdotal evidence. However, all the young white women at my office talk about how they think Obama is sexually attractive.

LA replies:

Further evidence that at least most women should not have the franchise in national elections. In any sane society, voters who decide on their vote for the political leader of their country based on whether they find a candidate sexy or not, would not be allowed anywhere near a voting booth. Of course, what I just said puts me beyond the pale by contemporary standards. But I’m appealing here not to contemporary convention, but to reason. So again I say, how can anyone reasonably argue that people who choose their candidate for the most important political office in the world based on whether they find him sexy—indeed, who openly boast of voting on that basis—have any business voting at all? How can anyone reasonably argue that such people should be allowed to choose the leader of their country?

Hannon writes:

This entry brought back the dark memory of a personal event from the mid-1980s in the same city of St. Louis. I was walking at night around 10 p.m. near the part of town where the hospitals are concentrated, generally an “OK” area, at least back then. I saw a group of four black youths, about 13 to 15 years old, milling in front of their house. They were in contemporary clothing and nothing said danger to me such as loud or vulgar language, menacing stance, etc. This was a tiny sliver of land with just a few houses on it, bounded by a boulevard and below grade railroad tracks. As I passed in front of that house they accosted me in a strange, mumbling, shuffling dance, not saying anything coherent, but getting closer and finally crowding me before they started beating me in a brief spasm, then backing away. I was left with an impressive shiner that I realized, years later, had damaged that eye. There was no demand for money. To borrow your phrase, it was simply mindless black savagery that seems to have no other explanation but a native cognitive affliction that for whatever reason is expressed in uncontrolled violence far more often than in other racial groups.

So, when you write about these things I know exactly what you mean and agree that nothing can improve in black-white relations in the US until we all own up to the plain facts that assault our senses each and every day.

Hannon

PS I was astonished that when I went to edit this message I had left off “black” to describe the four youths. Is that something like a reverse Freudian slip?

LA replies:

Yes. In a Freudian slip, the Id (the instinctive forces of the unconscious) is expressing itself against the repressive force of the Super-ego. In an anti-Freudian slip, the Super-ego (what external society tells us is allowed and not allowed, which in liberal society is Political Correctness) is expressing itself. You had an anti-Freudian slip.

It’s like when a liberal woman who had just come back from a trip to Norway told me that she had seen many “African-Americans” there. That was an anti-Freudian slip.

“Early in the summer on a Tuesday night after a Cardinal game a group of friends and I went to Ciceros for a late-night bite.
In front of Vintage Vinyl were around 50 to 60 teens and pre-teens (yes, all were black). I wondered if some big CD was being released, but VV was closed.”

LA replies:

Jermaine Smith, who is 17 years old if you can believe it, sure looks black to me. But wait— isn’t that a racist statement? Isn’t race just a social construct, invented by, uh, whites to marginalize, uh, blacks and privilege, uh, themselves?

Seriously, when it comes to the cardinal savage “virtues” of being physically powerful, morally depraved, and menacingly dangerous, this fellow is way out there at the right end of the bell curve. A true Gold Medal winner.

It seems to me that there are only two solutions for a society that contains a significant number of Jermaine Smiths: either they must be strictly segregated from the rest of us, or the rest of us must be armed.

Also, while we’re speaking of deserved plaudits for those who make outstanding contributions to the March of Progress, I mean, of Savagery, let’s hear it for those 17th and 18th century American colonists who purchased slaves from Africa! Great move, guys! I mean, talk about how beneficial it is to a society to import an entire population of physically powerful, intellectually simple, low-wage—or rather no-wage—foreign workers! There should be a monument to you fellows in front of The Wall Street Journal!

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

LA replies:

Actually the phrase I’ve used to describe a certain familiar type of savage in this country is “Physically powerful, mentally deficient, morally depraved.” In the previous comment I used a variation on it that would fit Jermaine Smith, with “menacingly dangerous” replacing “mentally deficient.”

I was a Cub Scout (which doesn’t mean much), but not a Boy Scout. While I’ve heard the Boy Scout motto, I was not consciously aware of the “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight” phrase. (The “morally straight” part is well known because of the part it played in the Boy Scout’s successful effort in the courts to avoid being forced to hire openly homosexual Scout masters.) But I’m fascinated by it, because of its resemblance (“physically ___, mentally ____, morally _____”) to the phrase I have used for years.

I did not originate the phrase, and it didn’t come from anyone on the racialist right. It was coined by a late acquaintance of mine, a refined, highly intellectual, Jewish professor of literature in New York City. When he said it, in a phone conversation, I was immediately struck by its accuracy and alliterative brilliance and have used it ever since.

Was my professor friend deliberately playing off the Boy Scott motto when he coined it? I don’t know, and sadly I can’t ask him.

Stephen Hopewell replies:

Very interesting story. To a former Boy Scout who repeated the Oath hundreds of times, the resemblance is impossible to miss. (The Scout Oath is good, isn’t it?) I’d say your friend must have known it, though I suppose there may have been similar phrases floating around in the English language, maybe in other civic oaths.

Alan Roebuck writes:

I would like to suggest a renaming of the “savages.” You know, the ones who attack strangers who pose no threat except for being the hated whites.

You see, the word “savage” doesn’t pertain to such ones. A savage, properly speaking, is a person who lives in something like the State of Nature, in which there is no authority to protect him. The savage often lives a highly disciplined life, as he must entirely fend for himself and, most importantly, defend his honor, without the possession of which he is disrespected by all and is therefore particularly likely to be attacked.

No, a savage has an integrity that these thugs lack. Another word is needed.

And in a VFR post, you correctly pointed out that it is wrong to call them “animals;” an animal is an honorable being.

So I suggest the word “monster.”

Although somewhat melodramatic and old-fashioned, the word “monster,” I submit, is a more accurate description of the thugs: they are morally misshapen beings, an offense to God.

LA replies:

Mr. Roebuck is correct in that the word savage has non-egregious meanings. The Bushmen, for example, exist in what might be called a savage state, but live lives of integrity and self-sufficiency and exercise a high level of skill in dealing with their environment.

I use “savage” in a particular sense, of unrestrained violence toward outsiders, without rules, without limits, without any regard for the physical integrity of the other. American Indian tribes which, if they captured a member of another tribe, which subject him to days’ long unspeakable tortures, are an example. The “wilding” behavior of blacks is another. The people of Mogadishu violating the corpse of an American serviceman and dragging it through the streets is another. Achilles’ behavior in dragging the dead body of Hector behind his chariot around and around the city of Troy, tearing the body to shreds, is another. Was the Somalians’ behavior “monstrous”? The word doesn’t fit. It was savage. Was Achilles’ mistreatment of the corpse of Hector “monstrous”? Again, the word doesn’t quite fit. It was savage. So I’m not sure that monstrous is an adequate substitute.

Adela G. writes:

I’m resending the below email because I thought it was worth posting—not, I hasten to add, for my imperishable prose but for my first-hand knowledge of those areas. The “wilding” phenomenon is comparatively new but black on white crime has been a concern there for half a century at least.

By the way, I agree with Mark A. when he wrote: “I think the success of Obama cannot be understated here. The greater his success, the more these attacks will increase.”

I had no doubt that were Obama to become president, it would embolden blacks—not to use him as a positive role model but to increase and intensify their already dysfunctional behaviors. I had no idea, though, that just his appearance as the presumptive Democratic nominee would have this deleterious effect on American society. It seems blacks can be more readily motivated than we previously gave them credit for.

Here is the e-mail Adela’s earlier e-mail which was not posted:

This news doesn’t surprise me at all. The places mentioned in the article, U City and Wellston, have sizable black populations (48.4 % and 92.1%, respectively) .

Blacks “took over” Forest Park 30 years ago. The DeBaliviere area, adjacent to U City and just north of Forest Park, is plagued with minor crime.

I grew up some miles from these areas but am familiar with them, they have never been considered safe places for whites to be after dark for as long as I can remember (40 years). They do have some beautiful old homes occupied by fairly affluent whites who’ve formed neighborhood watch groups, these aren’t ghettoes or “hoods”, as such. But they’ve long been considered problem areas.

As for the names of the suspects sought by police, Donez and Jermaine, well, enough said.

And don’t bother expecting fair or accurate reporting from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (or as my Republican boss used to call it, “that socialist newspaper”).

The Editrix writes:

Case in point: I used to be crazy about the Olympics until they became totally commercialized and meaningless sometimes in the Eighties and with the Olympic Games going on now, I am reminded of those black American athletes of the past who have been such a credit to their country. As a sideline: Do you know the story of Jesse Owens and his German competitor “Luz” Long in Berlin 1936? The first Olympic Games I was able to follow were the 1960 Games in Rome and I remember how impressed I, a little girl, had been by Wilma Rudolph. Blacks of the generations to which Owens and Rudolph belonged were forced to play their game by the white man’s rules. Then they were granted equal rights and sometimes along the way they got (or better: were given) the idea that they were actually superior and deserved preferential treatment. The frightening “yobbofication” (I have made up that word myself for want of a better one) we are currently watching with all its horrific consequences, is a result of white cowardice and a perverted notion of equality and justice. When the eternal truth that people are indeed NOT all equal is given up and ethics, morality and communication are geared to the lowest, instead of the highest, denominator, something horrible will happen, and it has. So it was not inevitable. That is my (maybe naive) view from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

LA writes (August 13):

Ken Leiser the Post-Dispatch replied yesterday to my query. He told me that in one of the July 26/27 MetroLink attacks, five of the six victims were white and the race of the sixth victim was not known. He told me that in the other attack that night, one of the victims was African-American and the other’s race was not known. He said that the police said that race was not a factor in any of the assaults.

I wrote back to him:

Thanks for the information.

But what about the race of the assailants?

He hasn’t replied yet. So as of this moment, while Mr. Leiser says that police have determined that “race was not a factor” in the attacks, he has not once said, neither in his articles nor to me, that the assailants are black.

Also, I think that when police determine that “race was not a factor,” they have some very narrow standard in mind, viz: Did the defendants say they were looking for a white person to attack? Did the defendants make any racially derogatory comments? If not, then “race was not a factor.”

August 14

The Editrix writes:

You wrote:

Also, I think that when police determine that “race was not a factor,” they have some very narrow standard in mind, viz: Did the defendants say they were looking for a white person to attack? Did the defendants make any racially derogatory comments? If not, then “race was not a factor.”

True! But it works the other way round as well. Even IF a racial epithet is used, it doesn’t necessarily make a crime a “hate crime”. More than two years ago, in Potsdam, near Berlin, an African was severely injured in a drunken brawl. It was established by a cellphone recording, that he had been called “nigger”, preceded by another nasty epithet used by HIM when the fight started. All of Germany was in a flurry of righteous indignation. To cut a long story short, in the end it turned out that HE had started the brawl, that his head injuries did NOT come from being hit, but from falling down during the fight, that the men who had been arrested were neither “right wing extremists” nor had they had a part in the brawl.

An excellent article in the, otherwise sickeningly politically correct, Swiss Neue Zürcher Zeitung suggested that there is a “self-evident maximum insult” (nahegelegte Maximalbeleidigung) when people are having a fight. So one would call in that specific context a black man a nigger, a woman by the c-word or any person a name (like, say, “swine”) that suggests that he is sub-human. However, it seems that race-related epithets can never serve as a “self-evident maximum insult” but indicate automatically a “hate crime”. But wait, that is only the case if the perpetrators (or perceived perpetrators) are white. About a year after the Potsdam case, a couple of Turks beat another African into a coma in Berlin and nobody called it a hate crime, in fact, nobody cared much. A “hate crime”, as we all know, can only be performed by (white) “right-wing extremists”.

It all boils down to the simple formula “all white-on-black violence is a hate crime always and no black-on-white violence is a hate crime ever”.

It works with “non-white” instead of “black” as well. Here is more information:

LA replies:

Of course on your main point. Two men get into a fight, they are automatically going to go fo the most obvious insults. To treat “nigger” as a hate word in that context, deserving of special punishment, is another example of liberalism gone completely mad—or rather completely anti-white.